Every time anyone suggests that regulation should be modernised, or toughened up, there is a standard response. The country will be ungovernable. Those who are proposing reform are getting above themselves. There's nothing wrong with the system. It's only begrudgery.

All those things were said about the Ethics in Public Office Act, and about the Electoral Act, when they were demanded by Labour and steered through by Labour Ministers. Worse was said. Eithne Fitzgerald was subjected to a number of sneering personal attacks in the Dail and elsewhere in the course of debates on the Ethics Act. When Ruairi Quinn introduced Section 153 of the 1995 Finance Act, which would have compelled professional advisers to report wrong-doing on the part of their clients, every professional body in the State, and most of the Opposition, heaped abuse on his head. Michael McDowell, as I recall, described it as "anti-enterprise" and called it a snoopers' charter.

Now we know that those measures are not only necessary - but need to be strengthened further. The actions of a few politicians have besmirched the reputations of the many. The greed and venality of Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry, which led in both cases to systematic and cynical tax evasion, have led to a widespread belief that all politics is corrupt.

All politics is not corrupt. The great majority of politicians - in all parties - are decent and honourable people whose primary motivation is the desire to serve. That's why the profession of politics above all will benefit from the McCracken report - if we, as politicians, are prepared to rise to its challenges.

I have already said that I believe Dail Eireann should take steps to remove Michael Lowry, who made a detailed - and cynically untrue - statement to the House about his affairs only last December. And I strongly believe that the Government must ensure that Charles Haughey, who abused and dishonoured the highest post our political system can bestow, is pursued with all the vigour of the law - and that includes the perks that go with his status as a former Taoiseach.

And I believe it is essential that we recognise that there are still issues to be investigated. We need to know who else can account for the tens of millions in the so-called Ansbacher accounts, and for what purposes; and to whom else was Mr Haughey indebted. We need to know about a number of highly questionable decisions made by governments in which Mr Haughey was Taoiseach - and we all know about the rich people who were made richer by those decisions. We have to, once and for all, attack the basis for all such unhealthy relationships, as Brian McCracken calls them.

There are unhealthy relationships in the planning area, where large cash gifts can be described as political rather than personal. That has to be got to the bottom of too. And we have had no more than the most cursory investigation, carried out by Fianna Fail itself, into how £750,000 of public money - your money - was used by Mr Haughey in the 1983-1987 period, apparently without any Party supervision or accounting.

The only effective mechanism for establishing the truth behind all these things is a further Tribunal of Inquiry, and we have to establish the truth.

But it is just as important that we learn the lessons. That means taking tough steps to ensure that regulation is as tough as is necessary to restore public confidence in our political system. It means that the Ethics in Public Office Act, and the Electoral Act, will need to be strengthened and built upon. It means that we are going to have to complete the job of removing the cloud of secrecy which contributes to much of the public mistrust about politics. When the Labour Party introduced Freedom of Information legislation in the last Dail, we were attempting to lay the foundations for a new relationship between politicians and the public they serve. We intend to continue that task in the coming weeks.

What is needed now is urgent legislative action on a range of issues which affect the right of access by the public and the media to the details of actions being taken on their behalf. Standards in public life are easy to call for, but the real test of our commitment to them is this - are we prepared to change our laws to ensure that those standards are adhered to at all times? Are we prepared to give those laws teeth - including criminal sanctions? Are we prepared to remove the barriers in the way of vigorous investigation of allegations of public wrongdoing?

We want to see a referendum to reverse the Supreme Court judgment on Cabinet confidentiality, to be held in conjunction with the presidential election this autumn. We can't allow the setting up of a new and wide-ranging tribunal, if at the same time we tie its hands in advance by prohibiting it from looking into Cabinet discussions if it is necessary to do so to discover the truth.

IN 1992, a few days after the Cabinet confidentiality judgment, I first published the text of a Bill to allow the lifting of the absolute rule of secrecy. In the years since then I experienced some difficulties in persuading other parties to go along that road. Fianna Fail, in particular, who are today calling for absolute openness in public life, were the first to welcome the ruling in favour of absolute confidentiality back in 1992.

The culture of official secrecy has served our country extremely badly, and some of the issues exposed in the McCracken report seem to have thrived within that culture. We have made a start at rolling back the tradition of confidentiality and we fully intend to finish that task.

The McCracken report calls on us to take action to deal with the individuals who have contravened the clear standards of behaviour which apply to holders of public office. It requires us to pursue vigorously the investigation of many unanswered questions. But perhaps most importantly, it requires us to complete the task we have begun of creating a system to regulate our political life in which we can genuinely have confidence.

For example, we need to enforce the rules of Dail Eireann to their full extent, to make it certain that people who transgress will face genuine sanction. The House of Commons, for instance, would regard someone who made an untrue personal statement as being guilty of a grave contempt.

We need to look again at the relationship between politics and the media, to ensure that genuine investigative journalism is given greater freedom from unfair harassment.

We need to complete the review of the Official Secrets Act, and bring in whistle-blowers legislation.

We need to open up the investigative process further. For example, there should be legislation requiring that the next and all future Tribunals of Inquiry are televised, unless there is a compelling reason for private hearings.

We need to recognise that in the modern age, there can be hundreds of "Ansbacher-type" accounts, with money flitting from one to another at the touch of an electronic button. Our company law, and the law on white collar crime generally, is perhaps a generation behind that simple fact.

We now, apparently, live in a zero-tolerance regime. It's about to face its first test. If zero tolerance is not going to mean one law for the rich and powerful, and one law for the deprived, now is the time to see it in action. That is not begrudgery, or an attempt to claim high moral ground. The Irish people are fair - and fairness demands that the anger they undoubtedly feel, the sense of betrayal that surrounds these events, will lead, at least, to a political system prepared to put its house in order.

The Rite and Reason column has been held over.